Jump to content
IGNORED

Trump this!


Њујоркер

Trump this!  

68 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Posted

Champion of the angry poor whites  -_-

 

 

The $916 Million Loss Hiding in Trump's Tax Returns
The New York Times has reportedly obtained portions of the nominee’s 1995 federal filings, which show a staggering loss.
 
MATT FORD
 
 
Some 77.5 million American households paid $1.6 trillion in federal income taxes in 2016. But after Donald Trump, a self-described billionaire, lost $916 million in 1995, he may have avoided paying anything at all in income taxes for almost two decades.

The New York Times published three pages of the Republican presidential nominee’s tax forms from 1995 on Saturday night, including one that indicates the real-estate magnate declared almost a billion dollars in losses that year.
According to tax experts consulted by the Times, that gargantuan loss could have allowed him to avoid paying federal income taxes for as long as 18 years. From the Times’s report:

Although Mr. Trump’s taxable income in subsequent years is as yet unknown, a $916 million loss in 1995 would have been large enough to wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years.

The $916 million loss certainly could have eliminated any federal income taxes Mr. Trump otherwise would have owed on the $50,000 to $100,000 he was paid for each episode of “The Apprentice,” or the roughly $45 million he was paid between 1995 and 2009 when he was chairman or chief executive of the publicly traded company he created to assume ownership of his troubled Atlantic City casinos. Ordinary investors in the new company, meanwhile, saw the value of their shares plunge to 17 cents from $35.50, while scores of contractors went unpaid for work on Mr. Trump’s casinos and casino bondholders received pennies on the dollar.

“He has a vast benefit from his destruction” in the early 1990s, said one of the experts, Joel Rosenfeld, an assistant professor at New York University’s Schack Institute of Real Estate. Mr. Rosenfeld offered this description of what he would advise a client who came to him with a tax return like Mr. Trump’s: “Do you realize you can create $916 million in income without paying a nickel in taxes?”

 

 

The forms shed some new light on the candidate’s murky financial history, but offer few clues about his current tax status. In a break from presidential tradition, Trump has refused to release his tax returns from recent years, claiming he cannot disclose them because of an ongoing IRS audit. A former IRS commissioner said in August that was not true.
 
His opacity has drawn criticism from across the political spectrum, ranging from his Republican predecessor Mitt Romney, who speculated there was a “bombshell” hiding in Trump’s tax records, to his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, who said at Monday’s debate that Trump likely “paid nothing in federal taxes.”

“That makes me smart,” he retorted.

In a statement, the Trump campaign denounced the Times for publishing what it described as a “more than 20 year-old alleged tax document [that] was illegally obtained.” The campaign also said Trump had paid “hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes.” It did not deny the Times’s central claims.

“This bombshell report reveals the colossal nature of Donald Trump’s past business failures and just how long he may have avoided paying any federal income taxes whatsoever,” Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, said in a statement. “In one year, Donald Trump lost nearly a billion dollars. A billion. He stiffed small businesses, laid off workers, and walked away from hardworking communities. And how did it work out for him? He apparently got to avoid paying taxes for nearly two decades.”

How the Times obtained the documents resembles something from a noir mystery novel. According to the newspaper, an anonymous sender mailed the three forms to reporter Susanne Craig, who had previously written about Trump’s finances.

“The three documents arrived by mail at The Times with a postmark indicating they had been sent from New York City,” the newspaper reported. “The return address claimed the envelope had been sent from Trump Tower.”

 

  • Replies 7.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Eraserhead

    649

  • Budja

    616

  • Weenie Pooh

    576

  • 3opge

    342

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted

he may have avoided paying anything at all in income taxes for almost two decades.

 

pa onda im baš takav i treba, možda avoiduje i plaćanje 20 triliona američkog duga 

Posted

Ja sam mislio da oni samo "nastampaju jos para" i to je to.

Posted (edited)

Zar se nisu u americi svi digli (i politicari i stampa) u odbranu apple od zle EU koja zeli nepravedno da im naplati porez koji je apple "legalno" izbjegao da plati?

Edited by borris_
Posted

Robert Reich: "Trump is to business what a skunk is to a dinner party. He makes a stink and people pay him. When he owes money he hides in the bushes."

Posted

Konacno NYT sa pravom bombom a ne sa raznoraznim "ljudskim pricama".

 

Kako i NYT pise, nema tu nista nezakonito, ali je dovoljno da kod njegovih pristalica ubije pricu kako je on do jaja pametan biznismen.

Posted

Zar se nisu u americi svi digli (i politicari i stampa) u odbranu apple od zle EU koja zeli nepravedno da im naplati porez koji je apple "legalno" izbjegao da plati?

 

Razlika je u tome sto je kod Apple pravno pitanje a kod Trampa pitanje lika i dela.

NYT ne optuzuje Trampa da je prikrio porez (evasion) vec da je koristio zakonske mogucnosti da porez ne plati zbog proslih gubitaka.

 

Doduse, spekulisu da je "could" jer nemaju poreske prijave od 1995., ali sada je na Trampu da demantuje NYT na nacin kako je Radule demantovao Dzivdzana. :fantom:

Posted (edited)

Sorry, ali rasizam nije kokain i trava.

 

Anduril je postavio lep clanak gde se vidi sta se desava sa selebritijima koji su davali rasisticke izjave. Igube posao dok trepnes. Dakle, kako Trampara, kao osvedoceni rasista, nije najuren sa gleddanog reality show-a?

Rejtinzi. Kontroverza (rasizam ili stagod) moze da bude pogubna za nekog glumca, obzirom da bi mu publika mogla zameriti. Koliko su kontroverze stetile velikom bratu?

 

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

Edited by Gandalf
Posted

dobar je boldvin kao tramp  ^_^

ma bogotac :D

Posted (edited)

Own up to NAFTA, Democrats: Trump is right that the terrible trade pact was Bill Clinton’s baby

 

          In late 2013, just before NAFTA turned 20, Jeff Faux, founder of the Economic Policy Institute, wrote an assessment of its impactcalling it “A Template for Neoliberal Globalization.” He highlighted four main ways NAFTA had impacted American workers: 

 

First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as companies moved their production to Mexico, where labor was cheaper.

 

Second, NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits ….

 

Third, NAFTA drove several million Mexican workers and their families out of the agriculture and small business sectors, which could not compete with the flood of products — often subsidized — from U.S. producers. This dislocation was a major cause of the dramatic increase of undocumented workers in the United States ….

 

Fourth, and ultimately most importantly, NAFTA created a template for the rules of the emerging global economy, in which the benefits would flow to capital and the costs to labor. Among other things, NAFTA granted corporations extraordinary protections against national labor laws that might threaten profits, set up special courts — chosen from rosters of pro-business experts — to judge corporate suits against governments, and at the same time effectively denied legal status to workers and unions to defend themselves in these new cross-border jurisdictions.

 

 
Edited by 3opge
Posted

 

First, it caused the loss of some 700,000 jobs as companies moved their production to Mexico, where labor was cheaper.

 

Kaze mi lik (CT, USofA) koji radi sa delovima koji se proizvode u Amerikama i po regionu koji je pokriven NAFTA-om (Mexico inc) da je sada (2016) vaznije imati fabriku delova u Meksiku sa malim gubitkom (jer to tako danas izgleda) nego imati istu takvu negde u nekoj vukojebini u samoj Americi. Politicki korektnije. Inace - delovi - da bi nekom kurcu valjali moraju da se urade od jednako kvalitetnog materijala kao i bilo gde drugde na svetu (Kina,anyone?) - struja mozda kosta neku kintu manje (nego u Amerikama) a radna snaga spada i 'sta smo pojeli i popili" deo - neki sasvim irelevantan procenat u ukupnoj ceni prozivodnje... Za te pare (+- oko procenat-dva) to moze i u Amerikama... Al' nije vishe po NAFTA-i... 

Ja sedim, cutim & slusham - ono - klimajuci glavom. Nisam ga bash to ni pitao al' dobro... :)

Posted

Vec kacio, ali nisi primetio.

Otpusteni s posla. Neizbaceni iz Velikog brata.

 

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

×
×
  • Create New...